New possible obstacle for Catholic-Orthodox unity on the sight

[Wandile]

Latin crusaders first started persecuting the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Cypress, Alexandria and established Latins Patriarchates there, when they conquered those lands, while those Orthodox Patriarchates fled to Cypress and Constantinople, then Greeks killed Latin traders in Constantinople, and then Latins sacked Constantinople.

So are you justifying the murder of Catholics by the Greeks because we installed our own bishops?

 

[Vaseljen]

So are you justifying the murder of Catholics by the Greeks because we installed our own bishops?

No, i am explaining who started the hatred between the Greeks and Latins.

 

[Wandile]

No, i am explaining who started the hatred between the Greeks and Latins.

The animosity had its roots before 1054 @actually nevermind the first crusade so you explanation is a century or two too late.

 

[Vaseljen]

The animosity had its roots before 1054 @actually nevermind the first crusade so you explanation is a century or two too late.

When Crusaders drove away Orthodox Churches in the Holy Lands, and when they established Latin Patriarchates, Pope of Rome established communion with these new Latin Patriarchates.
When Crusaders established Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, Pope of Rome established communion with that new Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople.

So Popes of Rome did support Crusader crimes against the Orthodox Church.

 

[Augustine]

So Popes of Rome did support Crusader crimes against the Orthodox Church.

Yes, and the Patriarch of Constantinople did support crimes against the Latin Church.

The question is where to go now? If anything, a millennium of tooth for a tooth, so to say, has yielded nothing but more division and scandal at a global scale. The way forward is mercy and, hating to sound like a liberal, to engage in theological dialog, looking forward, not backward. After all, we are not talking about bishoprics, but about the Body of Christ, for St. Pete’s sake!

Pax Christi

 

[commenter]

When Crusaders drove away Orthodox Churches in the Holy Lands, and when they established Latin Patriarchates, Pope of Rome established communion with these new Latin Patriarchates.
When Crusaders established Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, Pope of Rome established communion with that new Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople.

So Popes of Rome did support Crusader crimes against the Orthodox Church.

And yes, Peter denied Christ. 3 times. And the apostles mostly ran and hid during the crucifixion.

Fast forward to 2015. All Christians are caught in a vice between the rise of Islam, and IMHO the even more powerful rise of secular humanism in Western Europe, all English speaking countries, and many other countries. I am trying to discern how 2015 (or whatever year it is now on other calendars) impacts on church decisions, synods, councils, letters, etc; because that is the era we live in.

 

[KathleenGee]

The OP needs to study a broader view of history.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

commenter;13479194]I wonder what the rationale is for indirectly taking on these 2 issues in 2016.

It makes no sense to flake off (contested) historical Church scab wounds, especially if all parties involved on both sides are not present to present their defense or case to such a council.

Considering the world circumstances we find ourselves in today with wars and rumor of wars, one would beg the question why a negative subject that feeds the present schism, when Vatican II has already spoken to work towards communication with an ecumenical spirit.

Is the lack of
proclamation of the councils as ecumenical hurting the Church in some way in 2015?

How is this particular 2016 Church council binding and loosing upon the whole of Christendom without the Chair of Peter, when all other historical ecumenical councils has Peter calling a council, presiding a council, and ratifying a council’s findings?

If it does not bind and loose upon the whole of Christendom, then it is not an ecumenical council.

This is not to say the Orthodox cannot hold a synod or council addressing their local issues. Without a visible authority headship, how can the Orthodox Church’s make a ruling over for and over all the faithful?

In short such a subject for an Orthodox council brings in more questions that it can answer, Is the reason for my post here.

Peace be with you

 

[Vaseljen]

It makes no sense to flake off (contested) historical Church scab wounds, especially if all parties involved on both sides are not present to present their defense or case to such a council.

Considering the world circumstances we find ourselves in today with wars and rumor of wars, one would beg the question why a negative subject that feeds the present schism, when Vatican II has already spoken to work towards communication with an ecumenical spirit.

How is this particular 2016 Church council binding and loosing upon the whole of Christendom without the Chair of Peter, when all other historical ecumenical councils has Peter calling a council, presiding a council, and ratifying a council’s findings?

If it does not bind and loose upon the whole of Christendom, then it is not an ecumenical council.

This is not to say the Orthodox cannot hold a synod or council addressing their local issues. Without a visible authority headship, how can the Orthodox Church’s make a ruling over for and over all the faithful?

In short such a subject for an Orthodox council brings in more questions that it can answer, Is the reason for my post here.

Peace be with you

Orthodox Church did not hold more Ecumenical Council because there was no need, there was no major heresy to combat with.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Vaseljen;13477858]Didn’t saint pope Leo III forbid you guys to have Filioque in the Creed and didn’t you start celebrating Filioque Creed in 1014 when German emperor forced you to?

No.

That is after saint Photius’s era.
During Photian era,…Of course that the East accused west then of heresy, because those who were uneducated were preaching that the Holy Spirit proceed essentially from the Father and the Son.

Your history is questionable at best. The filioque was introduced to the faithful, first in Spain to defeat an Arian teaching heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. I have no idea where you got a German Emperor “FORCED” the faithful to profess the filioque when Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople?

The filioque does nothing but profess and protect the apostolic faith that Jesus is God incarnate period, the filioque defends Christ divinity in all ages and against all enemies of God’s revelation.

You criticize saint Photius like he is the worst bishop ever. Saint Photius was responsible for Slavic conversion to Christianity. He sent the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius in to mission, while Rome tried to undermine them because they were progressive and were preaching in the Native language of the Slavs. But again, all politics, Rome did not want Slavs to be Eastern rite.

Again your history is questionable. In 862 King Rostislav of Moravia (Slavic Kingdom) wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople to send him missionaries who were the “brothers Cyrial and Methodius”.

These brothers introduced an (un-Orthodox ) new Slavic language into the Liturgy. The German missionaries objected to these brothers infecting the Liturgy, when the Orthodox languages used since apostolic times has always been Latin, Greek and Hebrew.

The history you fail to mention is that these same two brothers went to Rome, where the Pope decided in the brothers favor to celebrate their liturgy in the Slavic tongue and put these same brothers under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile the Moravian Church was torn by a three way tension between the Germans, Constantinople and Rome, that is until the Hungarians invaded and Moravia disappeared.

I believe there is more to the history you mention, than you have been mislead to believe. I only ask that you look at both sides to each history with a neutral disposition and allow the light to expose the real Truth.

My only prayer in following Vatican II council in ecumenical effort to our Orthodox brethren is prayer;

Lord Jesus, Son of God, Have mercy on Me a sinner.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Orthodox Church did not hold more Ecumenical Council because there was no need, there was no major heresy to combat with.

Oh really? Not all but some Orthodox theologian(s) still pretend to believe that the filioque is heretical, and that the Bishop of Rome is not baptized, and unleavened bread in liturgy is all heretical.

If this not a cause to combat a major view of heresy, by some Orthodox members, then I don’t know what is?

Vaseljen, I don’t want to propose a difficult circumstance for you to answer here.

I look for progress to end the Byzantine Schism, not support efforts to encourage the existing schism.

Peace be with you

 

[Vaseljen]

Oh really? Not all but some Orthodox theologian(s) still pretend to believe that the filioque is heretical, and that the Bishop of Rome is not baptized, and unleavened bread in liturgy is all heretical.

If this not a cause to combat a major view of heresy, by some Orthodox members, then I don’t know what is?

Vaseljen, I don’t want to propose a difficult circumstance for you to answer here.

I look for progress to end the Byzantine Schism, not support efforts to encourage the existing schism.

Peace be with you

Good luck healing schism with papal infallability in place and all other differences.

 

[Vaseljen]

No.

Your history is questionable at best. The filioque was introduced to the faithful, first in Spain to defeat an Arian teaching heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. I have no idea where you got a German Emperor “FORCED” the faithful to profess the filioque when Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople?

The filioque does nothing but profess and protect the apostolic faith that Jesus is God incarnate period, the filioque defends Christ divinity in all ages and against all enemies of God’s revelation.

Again your history is questionable. In 862 King Rostislav of Moravia (Slavic Kingdom) wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople to send him missionaries who were the “brothers Cyrial and Methodius”.

These brothers introduced an (un-Orthodox ) new Slavic language into the Liturgy. The German missionaries objected to these brothers infecting the Liturgy, when the Orthodox languages used since apostolic times has always been Latin, Greek and Hebrew.

The history you fail to mention is that these same two brothers went to Rome, where the Pope decided in the brothers favor to celebrate their liturgy in the Slavic tongue and put these same brothers under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Meanwhile the Moravian Church was torn by a three way tension between the Germans, Constantinople and Rome, that is until the Hungarians invaded and Moravia disappeared.

I believe there is more to the history you mention, than you have been mislead to believe. I only ask that you look at both sides to each history with a neutral disposition and allow the light to expose the real Truth.

My only prayer in following Vatican II council in ecumenical effort to our Orthodox brethren is prayer;

Lord Jesus, Son of God, Have mercy on Me a sinner.

Peace be with you

The holy brothers were called by the pope to give report, because they were libelled by the German missionaries.

Filioque was put in to the Creed at the Toledo Council, because the Church in Spain wanted to get rid of Aries’s heresy, to point out Son’s divinity. They changed the Creed without the approval of the Ecumenical Church.

Second, After pope Leo III, in Rome Mass was served without the Creed, that was early 800s, then in 1014, German emperor, forgot his name, was visiting Rome, and at the middle of the mass he realized there was no Creed, so he asked for the Creed WITH Filioque to be put in to the Mass. So for the first time in Rome, in 1014, first Mass with the Filioque Creed was served, and then 40 years later, 4 Eastern Patriarchates broke communion with Rome and all other Eastern Churches.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you Gabriel!

Vas…I just shared with you from my seminar on the papacy at our regional seminary. We had one course solely on papal infallibility that was not defined as a dogma until 1856 at the first Vatican Council.

Take the two emerging dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into heaven. These beliefs, that Mary committed no sin, and because she did not sin, she did not deserve the wages of sin, death.

People back in ancient times had devotion to Mary, held she was perpetual virgin, and that her passing was not like ours. Dogma…the pope looks to our faith, then consults with the bishops, and if they fully agree, then the pope can make dogma. He does so with the bishops in communion with him.

Many Catholics do not understand papal infallibility either.

The pope prior to the Council of Florence was using such language because such language would encompass on Christians in all regions…a very different world than when the Church had the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The holy brothers were called by the pope to give report, because they were libelled by the German missionaries.

Filioque was put in to the Creed at the Toledo Council, because the Church in Spain wanted to get rid of Aries’s heresy, to point out Son’s divinity. They changed the Creed without the approval of the Ecumenical Church.

Second, After pope Leo III, in Rome Mass was served without the Creed, that was early 800s, then in 1014, German emperor, forgot his name, was visiting Rome, and at the middle of the mass he realized there was no Creed, so he asked for the Creed WITH Filioque to be put in to the Mass. So for the first time in Rome, in 1014, first Mass with the Filioque Creed was served, and then 40 years later, 4 Eastern Patriarchates broke communion with Rome and all other Eastern Churches.

I am not here to give a lecture of history to you. Please allow me to clarify a few historical facts before an unprecedented redirection of the thread could pursue.

First of all the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed long before the creation of the Nicene Creed was introduced. So let us end with the Latin Church lacking a Creed.

The Nicene Creed itself went under multiple changes in history, this is food for thought that you should look into.

A change to the substance of the Nicene Creed is unlawful. Rome does not change the substance of the Nicene Creed with the filioque. She only confirms in faith with the filioque in the Nicene Creed what the apostolic faith always professed, that Jesus is God incarnate. While the Arians were teaching from the Nicene Creed that Jesus was not God, because the Nicene Creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father and not the Son.

The filioque silenced the heretics for all time in the west. Just as the changes to the Nicene creed defeated multiple heresies from antiquity. The filioque is no different.

p.s many of the Eastern Catholics have returned to full communion with the bishop of Rome and found the filioque not to be heretical and does not infect the Nicene Creed.

Peace be with you

 

[Louie1983]

I am not here to give a lecture of history to you. Please allow me to clarify a few historical facts before an unprecedented redirection of the thread could pursue.

First of all the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed long before the creation of the Nicene Creed was introduced. So let us end with the Latin Church lacking a Creed.

The Nicene Creed itself went under multiple changes in history, this is food for thought that you should look into.

A change to the substance of the Nicene Creed is unlawful. Rome does not change the substance of the Nicene Creed with the filioque. She only confirms in faith with the filioque in the Nicene Creed what the apostolic faith always professed, that Jesus is God incarnate. While the Arians were teaching from the Nicene Creed that Jesus was not God, because the Nicene Creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father and not the Son.

The filioque silenced the heretics for all time in the west. Just as the changes to the Nicene creed defeated multiple heresies from antiquity. The filioque is no different.

Peace be with you

This is fascinating, thanks for this.

Do you have any helpful links you can point me to please?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Good luck healing schism with papal infallability in place and all other differences.

I can only repeat what St. Luke recorded in his gospel of Gabriel informing OUR blessed Mother; “For nothing will be impossible for God”.

Faith is never without hope

 

[Vaseljen]

I am not here to give a lecture of history to you. Please allow me to clarify a few historical facts before an unprecedented redirection of the thread could pursue.

First of all the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed long before the creation of the Nicene Creed was introduced. So let us end with the Latin Church lacking a Creed.

The Nicene Creed itself went under multiple changes in history, this is food for thought that you should look into.

A change to the substance of the Nicene Creed is unlawful. Rome does not change the substance of the Nicene Creed with the filioque. She only confirms in faith with the filioque in the Nicene Creed what the apostolic faith always professed, that Jesus is God incarnate. While the Arians were teaching from the Nicene Creed that Jesus was not God, because the Nicene Creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father and not the Son.

The filioque silenced the heretics for all time in the west. Just as the changes to the Nicene creed defeated multiple heresies from antiquity. The filioque is no different.

p.s many of the Eastern Catholics have returned to full communion with the bishop of Rome and found the filioque not to be heretical and does not infect the Nicene Creed.

Peace be with you

First of all, the Latin Church at the beginning was not entire western Europe, Latin world was destroyed by the barbarians who sucked Western Roman Empire. There were many rites in the west besides Roman Latin rite. The first Church father who was writing in Latin came in 3rd century.

The Orthodox Church disagrees with Filioque change and does not see it as Apostolic, Toledo came after 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Council. And Orthodox Church can accept Filioque to be taught in the Latin Church, but only under condition that Pope of Rome must make sure that no Christian under his jurisdiction believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son in ETERNITY. Orthodox are willing to tolerate Filioque only if pope teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son temporarily for the salvation of the People on earth. Orthodox Church believes that if Filioque is not viewed like this, then it is heresy. And all that Filioque thing goes against the famous Canon 7.

Not many Eastern Catholics (Ex Eastern Orthodox), few millions in western Ukraine and one group in Syria, Vatican in 1724 (if i remember well the year) used a disunity in the Antioch Patriarchate and offered one side, which was not supported by Constantinople a communion.
They joined Rome not because they believed Rome has true theology, they joined because they needed support and validation, because they lost it from Constantinople. And Orthodox Church will not forgive easily just another dirty move made by Rome which almost destroyed Antioch Patriarchate.
And if i am not wrong, they did not bring in Filioque in to their Creed, which proves that they are trying to sit on two chairs. If they shared same faith with you, they would at least share same Creed with you. Their hypocrisy goes so far, that they have kept Orthodox saints who were very strong critics of the Latin teachings.

Peace be with you too.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Vaseljen;13489801]First of all, the Latin Church at the beginning was not entire western Europe,

I am encouraged that you have the Latin Church at least in the beginning with Peter and Paul and not the entire western Europe.

Latin world was destroyed by the barbarians who sucked Western Roman Empire.

Hello, the barbarians were all converted by our Latin martyrs and saints which includes popes. Look today who is still standing from the barbarian attacks, they became Catholics at the cost of Catholic saints blood and witness.

There were many rites in the west besides Roman Latin rite. The first Church father who was writing in Latin came in 3rd century.

Debatable

The Orthodox Church disagrees with Filioque change
Toledo came after 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Council. And Orthodox Church can accept Filioque to be taught in the Latin Church, but only under condition that Pope of Rome must make sure that no Christian under his jurisdiction believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son in ETERNITY

When did the Church ever council to proclaim and dogmatize that the Holy Spirit proceeds in “Eternity” from only the Father and NOT the Son? Can you answer my question?

Orthodox are willing to tolerate Filioque only if pope teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son temporarily for the salvation of the People on earth.

Allow me to recap your Orthodox view of a filioque; The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in eternity, the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father in eternity, then your Orthodox filioque teaches that “the holy spirit proceeds from the Father” TEMPORARILY through the Son.

Your Orthodox view of the filioque is a MONSTER in the making and your Orthodox filioque is never from the apostolic Catholic faith.

Orthodox Church believes that if Filioque is not viewed like this, then it is heresy. And all that Filioque thing goes against the famous Canon 7.

Your new invention of the filioque falls immediately under heresy and creates a monster of the second person of the Trinity.

The filioque as expressed within the Nicene Creed proclaims that Jesus is God incarnate period. The filioque as expressed within the Nicene Creed never adds rigid terms outside of what is professed within the Nicene Creed.

Your Orthodox filiqoue invention is expressed outside of the Nicene Creed and adds rigid terms of eternity, and temporary status to an infinite God head, which immediately falls into heresy, that limits God and mocks the second person of the Trinity as a created being.

If the 2016 Orthodox council is based on a subject of a monster filioque invented by Orthodox Church’s which is never a Catholic teaching are in need of being informed of a correct interpretation of the correct filioque as expressed within the contenxt of the Nicene Creed.

Your Orthodox view of the filioque be it pro and con is never Catholic.

The filioque professes Jesus is God incarnate. Your Orthodox filiqoue creates a heretical monster of the second person within the Godhead of the blessed Trinity.

 

[KathleenGee]

There was always a bishop of Rome, and right now I recall Pope Clement of Rome, around 95AD. The barbarians never took out the bishop of Rome, but the Church of Rome became poor for some time. It never disappeared…so this possibility sounds like some of the sects that came out of American in the 1830’s…

Gabriel is speaking very objectively with you, Vas.

What is Orthodox opinion of John Paul II?